Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Rich Hughes has been commenting here and provoked a comment by none other than that feisty guardian of Uncommon Descent, ex USMC sergeant David Springer.

Dave wrote:

If I weren't banned at Pharyngula, Dispatches, Panda's Thumb, ATBC, I'd get down in the mud with them. I was sergeant in the USMC and Marines aren't exactly famous for being delicate and refined. The fact of the matter is they can dish it out but they can't take it and if any of them don't believe that then I challenge them to unban me at those sites. Even though I'm vastly outnumbered they still can't deal with me. On blogs I try to follow the rule "When in Rome do as the Romans do." Larry Moran's evolution blog is the only one where I'm still tolerated. Moran has a thick skin and for that he has my respect. Red State Rabble is a real joke. Witless, classless wimp Pat Hayes doesn't even enable comments. If not cowardice I'm not sure why since he doesn't have any semblance of refinement to guard.

Well, Dave, let's see how you deal with the cowards at AtBC. Let's see who is the first to cut and run.

Seriously Dave, Rich (and I) are amazed at your ability to dismiss climate change. Our view, independently arrived at, is that reducing carbon dioxide emissions by reducing consumption of fossil fuels has no huge downside, if, in fact, global warming turns out to be a myth. On the other hand...

64 comments:

David Springer won't show. I guarantee it. He's too chickenshit scared of what I would do to him. He knows my knowledge base is superior to his and that one of my sperm has more intelligence than his entire cerebral cortex.

There is only one rule. Would I be happy letting my mother read this. I don't want Dave to be just egregiously insulted if he turns up. He has claimed we won't be able to deal with him, so can we wait and address what points he makes, if any, without the "gros mots".

(1) Just post a prominent notice of your membership on your blog. It looks like you are using the Blogger.com "layout" format, which can be used to add text to your sidebar. Just click on "Add a page element" in the sidebar of the layout. The order of page elements in the sidebar may be changed by dragging and dropping them.

and

(2) Submit a membership listing on the ANCB blog. The membership list is here. Add any information you want.

Alan Fox left a comment on the "Member list" of the Association of Non-Censoring Bloggers. The comment said,

>>>>>Larry

Thank-you for the invitation, but now Intelligent Design is defunct as a political/religious movement after the Kitzmiller decision, I rarely even visit my own blog, as there is very little left to say on the matter now. <<<<<

Alan,For starters, the ANCB blog is not a good place to leave comments because almost no one reads that blog.

As for the ID movement being defunct because of the Kitzmiller decision, that is absolutely absurd. That was just an unappealed decision of a single judge -- and that decision has been discredited by the discovery that the ID-as-science section was virtually copied from the ACLU's opening post-trial brief, meaning that Judge Jones showed no independent judgment. Anyway, what does all this have to do with my invitation to join the ANCB?

>>>>> I commend your commitment against censorship. <<<<<<

Instead of your just commending me, I would greatly prefer to have you join the organization. Actions speak louder than words.

>>>>>> I think the moderation at Uncommon Descent has contributed in no small way to the rapid decline in support for ID. <<<<<<

For starters, the ANCB blog is not a good place to leave comments because almost no one reads that blog.

The same could be said of this blog, as it was mainly concerned with ID and unless and until there are new developments, there is little more to be said.

As for the ID movement being defunct because of the Kitzmiller decision, that is absolutely absurd.

Well, time will tell. My view is that it was never science and is no longer credible as a political/religious movement. I have no objection to people believing in it as philosophy or even attempting to demonstrate its scientific validity. What Kitzmiller showed is that the ID movement have nothing to show that is in any way scientific, and there is no sign of anyone doing anything positive like proposing some testable theories or, actually getting their hands dirty with some lab experiments. Remember Dembski did not appear for the defence and Behe did not impress. Who else is there that can be called as a credible witness to argue that ID is science?

Anyway, what does all this have to do with my invitation to join the ANCB?

Just that I am unlikely to be doing much more blogging about Intelligent Design, unless the ID proponents can come up with some new material.

Climate change is now a much more important issue, and, in the unlikely event I can make a useful contribution, any future threads will be on that subject. Otherwise, this site will go into semi-retirement.

Alan Fox said,>>>>>>What Kitzmiller showed is that the ID movement have nothing to show that is in any way scientific, <<<<<<

Alan,

IMO you should forget about the Kitzmiller case. It was just a decision of a single judge and the decision has now been discredited because the Discovery Institute showed that the ID-as-science section was copied from the plaintiffs' opening post-trial brief, showing that Judge Jones did no independent thinking. Also, there are non-ID criticisms of evolution such as criticisms concerning co-evolution and the propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction.

>>>>>>Anyway, what does all this have to do with my invitation to join the ANCB?

Just that I am unlikely to be doing much more blogging about Intelligent Design, unless the ID proponents can come up with some new material. <<<<<<

Well, if you agree with ANCB's principles and goals, then IMO you should just join instead of coming up with all these excuses why you should not join. It's free.

>>>>> Otherwise, this site will go into semi-retirement. <<<<<

If the bloggers on Panda's Thumb, UD, etc. had that attitude, they would go into semi-retirement, too.

And the debate over ID is not just about the science. There are also legal, social, philosophical, religious, etc.. issues.

>>>>> You overestimate the influence of UD.

I very much doubt that, Larry. :) <<<<<<

There are lots of other blogs and also websites, books, etc.. out there that deal with ID.

Well, being an English immigrant to France, the case was of great but academic interest to me, and I see the process and result very differently from you. My main worry at the time was that a far-right-wing cabal could exploit the fundamentalist christians to gain power. There seems to have been a backlash from the evil atheist evolutionists (a bit like Pearl Harbour and "awakening a sleeping giant")and the possibility no longer looks likely.

the bloggers on Panda's Thumb, UD, etc. had that attitude, they would go into semi-retirement, too.

In my view, they should. Although PT still has some interesting science articles, the anti-ID stuff is akin to flogging a dead horse. As for UD, the level of threads and comments there are beyond parody, but the amusement palls after a while.

And the debate over ID is not just about the science. There are also legal, social, philosophical, religious, etc.. issues.

If you omit "just", I totally agree with you.

There are lots of other blogs and also websites, books, etc.. out there that deal with ID.

But I have yet to see a coherent definition of what does or does not constitute ID. David Heddle is pretty scathing about Dembski's work, and I think all his math, good or bad, is based on a misconception about how evolution works. Everything else I see seems to be a variation on arguments from incredulity (this is the essence of Behe's arguments).

Just as I don't think Uri Geller is anything other than a conjuror performing cheap tricks, I don't think the ID movement have anything to offer as insight into the origins and purpose of the universe. If you can point me to something new about ID, that does not involve the Discovery Institute propaganda machine, I will certainly give it a look.

Regarding climate change, do you have a view?

And about joining your association, every blog administrator has the right to manage their own site as they wish. The problems a large site dealing with controversial issues must be much greater than yours or mine, with a few posts a week. I don't pretend this blog is more than a concession to my personal vanity, and I prefer to leave my options open. Not that I don't agree with the basic premise of the free exchange of ideas, and I wish you the best of luck with your project.

Larry, so presumably you disagree with Ed Brayton when he says:"Indeed, there have been cases where judges have have not filed a ruling at all, but merely adopted the proposed findings of one side or the other because he found them to be accurate and supported. Guess what happened when those cases were appealed? They were upheld by the Supreme Court.

But nothing so drastic happened in this case at all. In one particular section of the ruling, much of the ruling substantially follows the text of the plaintiff's Proposed Findings of Fact, sometimes verbatim and sometimes with a word here and there changed, or a reference added to support the claim. This is not at all unusual in such cases, nor does it indict the validity of the ruling in any way. This is simply the ID crowd desperate to find anything at all to attack the ruling with. They've been throwing fecal matter at the wall for a year now, just praying that some of it sticks."

Yes, France is one of my favorite countries too, because of its high concentration of velodromes. France has over 120 velodromes, whereas the USA, a far larger country, has only about 20.

>>>>> My main worry at the time was that a far-right-wing cabal could exploit the fundamentalist christians to gain power. <<<<<

Like one guy said to another in a TV ad, "you are being really paranoid."

>>>>> Although PT still has some interesting science articles, the anti-ID stuff is akin to flogging a dead horse. <<<<<

Without the ID controversy, PT would wither away to almost nothing.

>>>>> As for UD, the level of threads and comments there are beyond parody, but the amusement palls after a while. <<<<<

Some of the stuff on UD is silly, but so is a lot of the stuff on PT. My big gripe against both sites is their practice of arbitrarily censoring comments and commenters.

>>>>And the debate over ID is not just about the science. There are also legal, social, philosophical, religious, etc.. issues.

If you omit "just", I totally agree with you. <<<<<<

Actually, I have found ID to be very educational about science. Before ID, I did not realize the great microcellular and biochemical complexity of living things. I had no idea, for example, of the great complexity of the bacterial flagellum and the blood-clotting cascade.

>>>>> I don't think the ID movement have anything to offer as insight into the origins and purpose of the universe. <<<<<<

A big criticism of ID is that it doesn't have any "mechanisms." But what good are Darwinism's "mechanisms" if they are implausible?

>>>>> Regarding climate change, do you have a view? <<<<<

We do know that the climate is getting warmer and that this warming is having profound effects -- e.g., glaciers and polar ice caps are melting, coral reefs are dying because of warmer ocean temperatures. We might not know exactly what is causing this warming, but I feel that so far as CO-2 emissions are concerned, it is better to err on the safe side. As the saying goes, better safe than sorry. CO-2 emissions reduction has the added benefit of conserving fossil fuels.

>>>>> And about joining your association, every blog administrator has the right to manage their own site as they wish. <<<<<<

This is basically an association for people who feel the same way that we do, that blog comments should not be arbitrarily censored.

Also, I feel that bloggers who arbitrarily censor comments have shown an intention to present just one side of controversial issues and therefore their blogs should not be cited for any authoritative purpose, e.g, citation in court opinions and scholarly journal articles.

Chris Hyland said... >>>>> Larry, so presumably you disagree with Ed Brayton when he says:"Indeed, there have been cases where judges have have not filed a ruling at all, but merely adopted the proposed findings of one side or the other because he found them to be accurate and supported. Guess what happened when those cases were appealed? They were upheld by the Supreme Court. <<<<<<

On Evolution News & Views, Casey Luskin did a very good job of showing that such wholesale one-sided copying is frowned upon by the courts.

There were basically four major post-trial briefs, the opening and answering briefs of the plaintiffs and the defendants (in addition there was a supplementary brief supporting the plaintiffs' opening post-trial brief). Practically all the ideas in the Kitzmiller opinion's ID-as-science section were copied from the plaintiffs' opening post-trial brief -- there was no evidence that Judge Jones even looked at the defendants' post-trial arguments or the plaintiffs' answers to those arguments. Changes in a few words here and there do not change the fact that the ideas were copied from the plaintiffs' opening post-trial brief. Judge Jones' one-sided copying is especially suspicious in view of the bias he showed against the defendants by his Dickinson College commencement speech's statement that organized religions are not "true" religions:

. . . .this much is very clear. The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry. At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state.

>>>>>> In one particular section of the ruling, much of the ruling substantially follows the text of the plaintiff's Proposed Findings of Fact, sometimes verbatim and sometimes with a word here and there changed, or a reference added to support the claim. <<<<<<

What you casually call "one particular section of the ruling" is considered by many to be the centerpiece of the ruling -- the ID-as-science section. Your statement that "much of the ruling [i.e., the ID-as-science section] substantially follows the text of the plaintiff's Proposed Findings of Fact" is an understatement.

>>>>> This is simply the ID crowd desperate to find anything at all to attack the ruling with. <<<<<

Yes, France is one of my favorite countries too, because of its high concentration of velodromes.

Well it is the home of the Tour de France, though Lance Armstrong has dented local pride a few times recently. Cyclists are treated with great respect here, and there are Canadian and New Zealand teams training here because the Pyrenees is always part of the tour, but also because they don't get run off the roads.

My big gripe against both sites is their practice of arbitrarily censoring comments and commenters.

The censoring PT practises is hardly in the same league as UD. That said, I have to say that some of the "piling on" that has sometimes occurred at PT seems unnecessary to me. There has been some attempt to curb it lately.

Actually, I have found ID to be very educational about science.

Well, I agree to the extent that attempting to defend a position honestly forces one to research that position. What I find reading PT and Pharyngula, for instance, is the links are there to the original papers, so nothing has to be taken at face value. I have certainly learned a lot since being seduced into the ID/science debate a couple of years ago.

We do know that the climate is getting warmer and that this warming is having profound effects -- e.g., glaciers and polar ice caps are melting, coral reefs are dying because of warmer ocean temperatures. We might not know exactly what is causing this warming, but I feel that so far as CO-2 emissions are concerned, it is better to err on the safe side. As the saying goes, better safe than sorry. CO-2 emissions reduction has the added benefit of conserving fossil fuels.

I totally agree. Let's take Pascal's Wager. What is lost by being careful with our fossil resources?

This is basically an association for people who feel the same way that we do...

I suggest we demonstrate the good sense of promoting a free exchange of ideas by our actions and example, if that doesn't sound too pompous :P

What you casually call "one particular section of the ruling" is considered by many to be the centerpiece of the ruling -- the ID-as-science section.

As my blog is a bit of a backwater these days, Chris may not notice your response. In the mean-time, whether or not ID can be considered scientific was certainly the crux of the issue. Surely, the best way to demonstrate that ID is scientific is to do some science. Then appeal the ruling with the evidence of the hypotheses and supporting research.

>>>>>> Cyclists are treated with great respect here, and there are Canadian and New Zealand teams training here because the Pyrenees is always part of the tour, but also because they don't get run off the roads. <<<<<<<

They ought to train on the mountain roads above Santa Barbara, Calif., which have some of the world's longest climbs that remain free of snow and ice all year.

>>>>> The censoring PT practises is hardly in the same league as UD. <<<<<<

PT is as bad as UD if not worse. PT also engages in the abominable practice of IP address blocking, which can block large numbers of people who share the same ISP proxy IP address. Also, UD, unlike PT, does not get web awards and to my knowledge is not listed in the ISI Web of Knowledge, a scientific database.

>>>>>> Let's take Pascal's Wager. What is lost by being careful with our fossil resources? <<<<<<

If you worked in a factory that produces big gas-guzzling SUV's, you would know what is lost by being careful with our fossil resources.

>>>>>> I suggest we demonstrate the good sense of promoting a free exchange of ideas by our actions and example, if that doesn't sound too pompous <<<<<<

Yes, but that is too slow a process. I am in favor of more drastic action, like discouraging authoritative citation -- by court opinions, scholarly journals, etc. -- of blogs whose bloggers have denied others the opportunity to express themselves on the Internet.

>>>>> Surely, the best way to demonstrate that ID is scientific is to do some science. Then appeal the ruling with the evidence of the hypotheses and supporting research. <<<<<

That argument does not excuse Judge Jones' wholesale one-sided copying of the ACLU's opening post-trial brief.

As one who has been banned at least half a dozen times from UD, you can hardly expect me to agree with you. Just in numbers of bannings, 5-6 at PT and AtBC compared to hundreds at UD.

You may not agree, but your persistent off-topic posts at PT were initially bounced to the bathroom wall legitimately, and it was only your subsequent use of aliases that earned you a permanent ban.

Contrast UD, where my first comment there, about two years ago, politely asking for a clarification of a definition of intelligent design was deleted without trace and my registration cancelled. I re-registered thinking it was some kind of glitch, and the same thing happened. Then there was a period when comments remained visible to the poster but were never allowed through moderation, giving the impression comments were being ignored rather than censored.

Later there was a sort of amnesty, when Dave Springer allowed a few sceptics, including me, back as posters for a while. See this thread, with my final comment which resulted in Dave lowering the boom. I notice you also commented in the same thread, with a good point about the symbiotic relationship between bees and flowering plants, which didn't get a response from anyone. The ultimate symbiosis between plant and flower, the fig and the fig wasp, is even more amazing. I do not regard my own banning as an important issue, other than to illustrate a common tactic at UD, but many respectable, highly qualified and restrained posters have been summarily ejected, Allen MacNeil, Karl Pfluger, Lizzie Liddell, Zachriel, etc., etc. (see here for more examples.)

That said, I do find PT and AtBC rather black & white in their approach, and there should be some probationary period, with posters who have breached rules given the opportunity to avoid a ban by curbing unacceptable behaviour.

If you worked in a factory that produces big gas-guzzling SUV's, you would know what is lost by being careful with our fossil resources.

That company should be planning new models with greater fuel efficiency. It is a sales opportunity. Sedan chair manufacturers went out of business or sought new products to sell.

I am in favor of more drastic action, like discouraging authoritative citation -- by court opinions, scholarly journals, etc. -- of blogs whose bloggers have denied others the opportunity to express themselves on the Internet.

You and I will need to worry when we can no longer freely set up an internet site and publish whatever we wish (within the limits imposed by the oscenity, race etc. laws). If people ignore our opinions, we cannot blame censorship.

>>>>>> You may not agree, but your persistent off-topic posts at PT <<<<<<

No, I don't agree. My posts were not off-topic -- you are just making this up.

>>>>> were initially bounced to the bathroom wall legitimately <<<<<<

Wrong. For example, I complained about the Ohio board of education's practice of hearing public comments after voting rather than before, and Wesley Elsberry censored that complaint because he was not aware of any complaints from the commenters themselves! And the Bathroom Wall is just a hypocritical gimmick that PT uses to give the false impression that comments are not being censored when they actually are.

>>>>> and it was only your subsequent use of aliases that earned you a permanent ban. <<<<<

Wrong again -- I started using aliases only after I was permanently banned by means of IP address blocking -- I think that the IP address block was directed mainly at someone else but I happened to share the same ISP proxy IP address. I continued posting comments by using anonymous proxies.

UD -- unlike PT -- does not make any bones about practicing arbitrary comment censorship. Furthermore, UD -- unlike PT -- does not get blogging awards and is not listed in a scholarly scientific database (PT is listed in the ISI Web of Knowledge database).

>>>>> That company should be planning new models with greater fuel efficiency. <<<<<<

Starting production of new models is easier said than done.

>>>>>I am in favor of more drastic action, like discouraging authoritative citation -- by court opinions, scholarly journals, etc. -- of blogs whose bloggers have denied others the opportunity to express themselves on the Internet.

You and I will need to worry when we can no longer freely set up an internet site and publish whatever we wish <<<<<<

We need to start worrying right now. Why should blogs of bloggers who arbitrarily censor comments be authoritatively cited by court opinions, scholarly journal articles, etc.?

I confess I did not pay too much attention to your posts at the time, there was much more interesting stuff going on, and I don't have the time or inclination to go back and look now, so my comment was based on my recollection. This is not "making things up". But you must have the references to hand to prove your point. If you want, write it up into a thread and I'll post it here.

Wrong again -- I started using aliases only after I was permanently banned by means of IP address blocking -- I think that the IP address block was directed mainly at someone else but I happened to share the same ISP proxy IP address. I continued posting comments by using anonymous proxies.

Thinking about this, Larry, what about a deal? I am banned at Uncommon Descent but I believe you can still post there. Why don't you lobby for my reinstatement there, and in return, I will do what I can to get your ban lifted at AtBC and Pandas Thumb.

I think that the situation where a poster is either free to post what he likes or is permanently banned is too draconian, and a period of suspension followed by reinstatement after an undertaking to follow the site rules would be fairer.

I suspect, if I were in a position to decide, I would ask you to keep to the topic of the thread and not make repetitive posts, and also to support claims when challenged, or withdraw them. How would you feel about being asked to acknowledge and abide by the site rules?

>>>>> But you must have the references to hand to prove your point. <<<<<<

I posted hundreds of comments on PT and I couldn't find them all. All I can say is that I tried to stay on-topic. Where I deviated, it was because other commenters changed the subject -- for example, they would start asking me about my views about the Holocaust. These commenters kept needling me even after I said that I did not want to change the subject.

>>>>> Larry, what about a deal? I am banned at Uncommon Descent but I believe you can still post there. Why don't you lobby for my reinstatement there, and in return, I will do what I can to get your ban lifted at AtBC and Pandas Thumb. <<<<<

I don't have any influence over those people. And your proposed "deal" is like the proverbial band-aid on a sieve -- what we need to do is change the whole Internet culture that condones and even approves of arbitrary censorship of comments. You say that you support the goals of my Association of Non-Censoring Bloggers, yet you refuse to join. I think that is pretty wishy-washy of you.

>>>>> I think that the situation where a poster is either free to post what he likes or is permanently banned is too draconian <<<<<<

I agree. For example, I asked Ed Brayton to unban me (he banned me because he disagreed with my literal interpretation of a federal court rule and he did not even give me a single chance to respond to his reply) and he rudely refused, even posting an article that ridiculed my request to be unbanned. Bloggers like Ed Brayton got an early start in blogging and so their blogs became major public forums. Now Ed is trying to play king of the hill by preventing others from expressing their views on his blog.

>>>>> I suspect, if I were in a position to decide, I would ask you to keep to the topic of the thread and not make repetitive posts, and also to support claims when challenged, or withdraw them. <<<<<

As I said, it was others and not I who changed the topic. Also, failure to support claims is not an excuse for censorship.

So, you are banned at PT, AtBC and Ed Brayton's blog. On this you base your campaign about internet censorship. Pardon me for saying, this is rather like a campaign against Larry Fafarman being banned at three sites. I am not so sure that Ed Brayton's blog has huge influence, but I am willing to attempt to persuade him to reinstate your registration there, although I have as much influence with him as you claim at UD. By the way, I wasn't expecting you to succeed in getting me readmitted at UD, I just hoped you might try.

I have already discussed altering the moderation policy at AtBC, pointing out the unfairness of life-time bans without appeal, and there may be some chance of a development in ths area.

Regarding being baited by blog regulars, this phenomenon is not unique to PT. Breezing in to any forum and posting comments critical of the general view is almost bound to generate flames. It is part of the cut and thrust of lively debate.

(me:) >>>>> I suspect, if I were in a position to decide, I would ask you to keep to the topic of the thread and not make repetitive posts, and also to support claims when challenged, or withdraw them. <<<<<

(you:) As I said, it was others and not I who changed the topic. Also, failure to support claims is not an excuse for censorship.

I was asking how you might react if asked to give an undertaking as to future behaviour. You are only responsible for your own comments in a forum. It is open to you to contact the moderator with objections to posters who are not abiding by the blog rules. This does not really relate to censorship.

Alan Fox said,>>>>> So, you are banned at PT, AtBC and Ed Brayton's blog. On this you base your campaign about internet censorship. Pardon me for saying, this is rather like a campaign against Larry Fafarman being banned at three sites. <<<<<<

There is much more to it than that. I have also been banned by PZ Myers (Pharyngula blog) and Wesley Elsberry (Austringer blog). Also, when I was unable for a few days to post comments on Scienceblogs blogs and I asked Josh Rosenau (Thoughts from Kansas) to do me the favor of posting my comment for me, he rudely refused, saying that I had an "incompetent inability" to post comments. Needless to say, I was so disgusted that I stopped posting on his blog.

Also, consider --

Panda's Thumb and Uncommon Descent are probably the biggest blogs dealing with the evolution controversy.

Panda's Thumb has gotten blogging awards, a blog award from Scientific American magazine and an award for being a finalist in a competition for being voted the best science blog. PT is listed in Thomson Scientific's ISI Web of Knowledge scientific database. Just look at the right-hand sidebar on the PT site.

PZ Myers' Pharyngula blog is a very popular blog and got a blog award for being voted the "best science blog."

The following comment from a PT blogger shows the problems I was having on PT:

Trying to rebut the nonsense he posts is perectly fine, but almost no one who responds to him tries to do that. What they do instead is spew out a dozen or more responses consisting of rude name-calling, some of them simply saying “shut up Larry”. Why anyone thinks that’s going to work is beyond me. While doing nothing to shut him up, posts like that do serve to drag this blog down into the gutter.

Many blogs that got an early start have now become de facto public forums. Many of these long-established blogs are now trying to play king-of-the-hill by preventing newcomers from posting their ideas in prominent places on the Internet. Some blogs are now being authoritatively referenced by court opinions, scholarly journal articles, etc.. For practical purposes, many blogs are now no more private or personal than newspapers, major magazines, and radio and TV stations.

"Cyberbullying" is now a BIG issue -- it was in a front-page article in the NY Times and I saw a TV special report about it. By cyberbullying, I don't mean just letting off some steam -- I mean such things as (1) credible threats of violence and (2) abuse that disparages people's race, color, sex, religion, national origin, etc.. Cyberbullying and arbitrary censorship of comments serve the same function -- preventing or discouraging others from expressing their views on the Internet. Bloggers often look the other way when their self-appointed goons taunt dissident commenters and then pounce on dissident commenters who dare to retaliate -- that is a form of cyberbullying.

You say that you support the goals of my new organization, the Association for Non-Censoring Bloggers, yet you refuse to join. IMO so far you have shown yourself to be nothing but a big bag of hot air. You refuse to help give ANCB some credibility by being the first member (aside from myself) to join. If you join, I will post an article announcing it. My blog already lists a link to your blog. If you join ANCB, it would give both of us some publicity. You are making this too complicated -- you could have joined several times over in the time you spent trying to justify not joining, or before you could say Jack Robinson --

Before you can say Jack Robinson. Immediately. Grose says that the saying had its birth from a very volatile gentleman of that name, who used to pay flying visits to his neighbours, and was no sooner announced than he was off again; but the following couplet does not confirm this derivation:

A warke it ys as easie to be doneAs tys to saye Jacke! robys on.

An old Play, cited by Halliwell: Arch. Dict.

>>>>> I am not so sure that Ed Brayton's blog has huge influence, but I am willing to attempt to persuade him to reinstate your registration there, <<<<<<

Please don't bother -- he would probably use your request as an excuse to take another potshot at me.

Alan Fox said... >>>>> There is another issue that makes me reluctant to associate with you. I recall that you have been identified as a holocaust denier. Does this allegation have any factual basis? <<<<<<

I consider myself to be a holocaust revisionist. My blog "I'm from Missouri" has two sets of articles on the subject -- "Holocaust revisionism (1 of 2)" and "Holocaust revisionism (2 of 2)" -- listed in the post label list in the left sidebar. I also have a set of articles under the label "Darwin-to-Hitler," but those have little or no holocaust revisionism or denial.

Anyway, how could this affect you? What does it have to do with the goals of the Association of Non-Censoring Bloggers?

It is obvious by now that Alan Fox is not going to answer my questions.

Sorry Larry, I don't have that much time for blogging these days. Which questions did you want me to answer?

-He really has no good reason for not joining the Association of Non-Censoring Bloggers.

Whether you consider it a good reason or not, it really is my choice whether to join your association or not, Larry, and I would rather not be in an association with just you as the only other member. I am not comfortable with the way you express yourself on your own blog. You may say this is irrelevant but there it is. There are other blogs that profess to operate a no-moderation policy. What about Ty Harris?

By the way, you didn't indicate whether you wanted me to try and negotiate for your restoration of posting priviledges at AtBC. The moderators there did not reject the possibility out of hand.

>>>>> I don't have that much time for blogging these days. Which questions did you want me to answer? <<<<<<

I asked only two questions -- if I start picking and choosing which ones to eliminate, I won't be left with many questions.

>>>>>> Whether you consider it a good reason or not, it really is my choice whether to join your association or not <<<<<<

I know that -- I just think it is a bad decision. I could name you as an honorary member.

>>>>>> I would rather not be in an association with just you as the only other member <<<<<<

Does that mean that you'll join if I can find someone else to join?

>>>>> I am not comfortable with the way you express yourself on your own blog. <<<<<<

I sometimes get abusive, particularly in the comment sections -- but have you seen some of the utter crap that is posted on my blog? I can't delete most of it because of my no-censorship policy, so I have to let off steam somehow. The Darwinist bloggers are a lot worse -- they often let their self-appointed goons taunt dissenting commenters and then pounce on any dissenting commenter who dares to retaliate.

>>>>> There are other blogs that profess to operate a no-moderation policy. What about Ty Harris? <<<<<<

His blog does not post a comment policy. Also, I am not just talking about a no-moderation policy -- I am talking about a no-censorship policy.

>>>>> By the way, you didn't indicate whether you wanted me to try and negotiate for your restoration of posting priviledges at AtBC. <<<<<<

As the victim of several bans from pro-ID sites and having seen heavy moderation prevent the free exchange of ideas and create animosity where none need exist, I thought i would experiment with a blog that had no moderation or censorship beyond reserving the right to delete spam and obscenity. You can judge for yourself if the experiment worked.

Of course I will keep to my own standards. I have bent over backwards to keep to my own standards.

I see that you copied my ANCB logo into your blog's sidebar! Unfortunately, as I note on the ANCB website, I am unable to do this on my own main blog, "I'm from Missouri," because for particular reasons (keeping my Sitemeter, a better link list format) I am still using the old "template" blogger.com format instead of the new "layout" blogger.com format.

The link to your blog in your member listing on my ANCB website does not work -- the URL is bad. Either you can fix it or I can fix it (as a registered Blogger.com user, you can delete your own comments on another's Blogger.com blog -- just use the little trashcan icon in the lower left-hand corner). If I fix it, your name's link to your blogger user profile won't work (not that it matters -- your profile has very little information). Please let me know how you want this correction to be made.

Also, I see that you have a SiteMeter installed here -- I thought that wasn't possible in the layout mode but I just found the instructions for installing it in the layout mode. It looks like maybe you are recording your own visits. To not record your own visits, go into the SiteMeter manager and choose the "ignore visits" option. It is also necessary to set your cookie option to a low level of privacy. I do this on my computer by hitting the start button, choosing Internet Explorer, and then choosing "tools," then "internet options," and then "privacy." I am still going to stay in the Blogger.com template mode instead of switching to the layout mode because the link list formatting in the layout mode is bad.

I see that you are averaging only 13 visits a day, and some of those may be your own visits. That low average is not surprising, considering that your most recent post is dated March 20. I am averaging about 40 visits per day, which is poor by the standards of the popular blogs, but I have high averages of time per visit and page views per visit. I looked at some of your archived posts and you had some lively discussions here. Contrary to what you seem to think, the evolution controversy is bigger than ever. Panda's Thumb and Uncommon Descent have certainly not folded up. I think there is a need for a blog such as yours -- my blog has few articles about the scientific and philosophical aspects of the controversy. My blog discusses mainly the legal and social issues. Maybe the solution to reviving your blog is to invite guest articles. If you wish, I will post on my blog any announcement that you want to make that you think will help revive your blog (as I said, I don't get a lot of traffic, but every little bit helps). We non-censoring bloggers really need to network. That is one of the ways that Panda's Thumb and the personal blogs of the PT bloggers got so big.

Have you read the latest threads? Do you really believe that he has kept to his own standards?

I must confess I did not read the detail of Larry's standards. My concern is that he does not arbitrarily censor comments for content on his blog. If you have evidence that he is deleting comments for reasons other that spam or obscenity, then I will reconsider. Larry's views on the holocaust (I was under the impression Larry is a revisionist, disputing details, not that the events did not occur) are not an issue of censorship, so long as he allows free debate, supports his claims or admits error. Holocaust denial that flies in the face of evidence is a criminal offence in Germany for example. If Larry is promoting holocaust denial, that would certainly mean my withdrawal.

Larry’s header states:Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of commentsIt is not possible to link to deleted comments for proof. At first there were “comment deleted” notices but then these disappeared. Larry will leave many critical posts on and then boldly point to them as proof that others are not deleted.

Several commenters have complained of their posts disappearing and Larry has suggested “technical problems” and tells people to forward the posts to his personal email and he will post them himself. Larry has never acknowledged or responded to an email from me and at least one other commenters. Of course I have no way of knowing how many more there may be.

He also repeatedly specifies which items he will censor, personal items he calls “gossip”. "Gossip" doesn't seem to fit under your two limitations of spam and obscenity. "Gossip" seems to cover anything Larry finds to be uncomfortable. One thing he seems to find to be “gossip” is mention of specifics of the cases he has lost in his disasterous amateur legal career. While he often brings up the cases himself and claims to be a legal expert in some limited fields. He attacks the judges and complains of a conspiracy. Of course he also allows some, possibly most, comments on this subject. His censorship is completely arbitrary. It is the sort of thing that he rails against.

Another thing that he fits into the “gossip” category is any mention of his brother Dave, who often posts on his blog and who Larry calls “Fake Dave”. When Dave first posted on Larry’s blog, Larry denied that Dave was his real brother, then he harrassed their elderly mother into calling Dave to demand that he stop posting. Next, Larry posted both on “Dispatches” and on his own blog impersonating Dave. Ed Brayton described similar tactics on his “Dispatches” blog with his article Will the Real Dave Fafarman Please Stand Up and brilliantly proved who was lying in a thread titled The Real Dave Fafarman Revealed”.

A commenter going by the name of “Hector” mentioned Dave as the source of an analogy which he gave, to which Larry hit the ceiling “The name Dave or David Fafarman or my "brother," "sibling" or "relative," or whatever, named "Dave" or "David" or not named will not be allowed in comments here, except that Fake Dave may use it as a posting name because that is now his identity here...”As far as other “gossip”, in discussing his basis for his hostility to those who claim that the holocaust is real, he deletes any post pointing out that his parents, both still living, are both Jewish. I don’t even pretend to understand his problem here. The bottom line is that what Larry has told you about his holocaust position and what still remains on his blog differ greatly.

Larry’s header also states:Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged.It would not take you more than a few minutes of reading of Larry’s blog to see that he is nearly always the first one to resort to ad hominem attacks and insults. His commenters often respond in kind but there are few cases where they initiate these attacks and insults.

Besides holocaust denial and a disbelief in evolution, some of Larry's other claims have been a belief that meteors come from inside the atmosphere and that the moon landings were done in a Hollywood studio. He seems to have backed off on the later two.

You have chosen to associate yourself with this hypocrisy while not seeming to practice it yourself. I won’t do your research for you. I would suggest that you read Larry’s blog yourself and decide if this is a standard you approve. "Lie down with dogs and you will get up with fleas."

It is ironic that those who see nothing wrong with the flagrant arbitrary censorship of comments and commenters on other blogs have complained the loudest when I draw the line somewhere on my blog. My prohibition of gossip about my private life -- e.g., my family and my employment status -- is reasonable. My private life is not germane to the discussions and we don't gossip about the private lives of others on my blog.

Voice said,>>>>> Several commenters have complained of their posts disappearing and Larry has suggested “technical problems” and tells people to forward the posts to his personal email and he will post them himself. Larry has never acknowledged or responded to an email from me and at least one other commenters. <<<<<

I did offer to post others' comments myself, but I have never received such emails. I said that if a comment disappears, it should just be re-posted.

>>>>> One thing he seems to find to be “gossip” is mention of specifics of the cases he has lost in his disasterous amateur legal career. <<<<<<

It's not that my "legal career" is gossip, it's just that my legal career -- whether good or bad -- has no bearing on the discussions. Attorneys don't tell judges and juries about the legal careers of opposing attorneys. Discussing my legal career is just an attempt to make an ad hominem attack and I have a right to get very, very pissed off about it. My legal career is a particular sore spot with me because of my many encounters with crooked judges and attorneys. Nonetheless, my legal career is in the public records and I have never threatened to censor mention of it.

>>>>> Larry's other claims have been a belief that meteors come from inside the atmosphere <<<<<

I don't hold such a belief -- I was just confused by the incorrect definitions of a "meteor shower" as "radiating from," "originating in," or "emanating from" the constellation for which it is named. The correct definition is that the meteor trails start all over the sky and that their directions radiate from the constellation. I accepted this explanation a long time ago but some people just insist on kicking a dead horse because there are so few ways they have of attacking me.

Alan Fox says in various places -->>>>>Larry's views on the holocaust (I was under the impression Larry is a revisionist, disputing details, not that the events did not occur) are not an issue of censorship, so long as he allows free debate, supports his claims or admits error.

If Larry is promoting holocaust denial, that would certainly mean my withdrawal.

I have read through the threads and comments relating to Hitler and the holocaust. It does seem Larry is able to ignore evidence and to churn out abuse on a regular basis. <<<<<<

Alan,

Your above comments show that you are very wishy-washy about this issue of my views about Hitler and the holocaust. My views about Hitler and the holocaust have nothing to do with whether or not I run a censorship-free blog. As for abuse, my standards for abuse just happen to be different from yours. I say that abuse is OK so long as it does not disparage anyone's race, color, sex, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin. I want my blog to remain as free of censorship as possible and I want to feel free to retaliate if someone abuses me, so those are the reasons why I have this lenient policy on abusive comments.

Also, you still haven't answered my question -- do you want to fix your non-working link on my ANCB website or do you want me to fix it?

Larry Fafarman said... It is ironic that those who see nothing wrong with the flagrant arbitrary censorship of comments and commenters on other blogs have complained the loudest when I draw the line somewhere on my blog.

As you know, that is a false statement. I am against arbitrary censorship. The only place that I have seen flagrant arbitrary censorship is on your blog "I'm From Missouri". Your complaints about being "arbitrarily" censored on other blogs are bogus. You were banned for cause and only after numerous warnings.

My prohibition of gossip about my private life -- e.g., my family and my employment status -- is reasonable. My private life is not germane to the discussions and we don't gossip about the private lives of others on my blog.

Normally I would agree with you. The exceptions came first when your brother Dave posted first on “Dispatches” and then on your own blog. You first tried to deny he was your real brother which was only disingenuous. You then tried to discredit him by impersonating him in posts on both blogs. This was out of line. Ed Brayton brilliantly proved the attempt at deception. When others then followed your lead and impersonated you, you were outraged. It looks like a double standard, Larry.

Also along the family line, when you got into the holocaust, people questioned your motives. While normally mentioning or discussing a person's religion would be out of bounds, I think that in this case mentioning that your parents and ancestors were Jews and would not have survived in WWII Germany was not out of line.

As to your employment status, you claim to be a retired engineer. This would relate to your credibility on technical issues. You once were an engineer but you are not retired. There is a difference between fired and retired, yet perhaps this could be considered too personal. I would say that if you did not claim technical expertise, people would not attack you on this line even if those attacks consist merely of telling the truth.

I did offer to post others' comments myself, but I have never received such emails.

The emails were sent by me and at least one other. I find it hard to believe that you did not receive them. They did not bounce.

It's not that my "legal career" is gossip, it's just that my legal career -- whether good or bad -- has no bearing on the discussions.

When you are discussing a legal subject and claim to be an expert, it does have a bearing. As I have said before (perhaps uncharitably) If a person claims to be Annie Oakley, the fact that they have failed in twelve consecutive attempts to hit the ground with a sack of manure is admissible.

Attorneys don't tell judges and juries about the legal careers of opposing attorneys.

They would certainly speak up if a person claiming to be an expert was not.

My legal career is a particular sore spot with me because of my many encounters with crooked judges and attorneys.

This is like the person who has had nine divorces and finds fault only with his ex-wives. Even those on your side were trying to distance themselves from you.

Nonetheless, my legal career is in the public records and I have never threatened to censor mention of it.

You have said that we don't know what we are talking about because you claimed that some of your cases were not available publicly. Now you admit that they are part of the public record. And you have threatened to censor mention of it.

>>>>> Larry's other claims have been a belief that meteors come from inside the atmosphere <<<<<

I don't hold such a belief

Now you don’t hold such a belief. You did.

I was just confused by the incorrect definitions of a "meteor shower" as "radiating from," "originating in," or "emanating from" the constellation for which it is named.

Not because numerous people didn't try to explain it to you. As usual, you ignored all evidence contrary to your belief and pretended that it had not been given.

You didn't mention anything about your previous belief that the moon landings were staged. Do you deny stating that? If you have changed your mind on this, why do you ignore your brother's requests to explain what changed your mind? How about your belief that the Los Angeles Times cannot possibly be edited printed, and then distributed to as many places as it is found without supernatural aid? How about your belief a few years ago that you were going to die within the next 24 hours? You may believe this to be irrelevant but it does relate to your mental state and overall credibility.

Also, you still haven't answered my question -- do you want to fix your non-working link on my ANCB website or do you want me to fix it?

Yes, Alan. As the only practicing member of the ANCB, do you really want this link there?

Anyway, Alan, I don't see why you want to bite the hand that feeds you. So far as I can see, I am the only one who has been trying to help you revive your blog. My blog has articles about your blog and a permanent link to your blog, and I was the one who suggested that you invite guest articles. The amount of help I can give you is limited because I am averaging only about 40 visits per day, but your blog is in much worse shape with only about 10 visits per day. I don't see what you've got to lose by accepting my help while trying to overlook my holocaust revisionism and tolerance of some abusive language. And accepting help from a holocaust revisionist does not mean that you are a holocaust revisionist yourself.

BTW, it looks like your sidebar has automatic listing of recent comments! I thought that feature was not available on Blogger.com, so I would greatly appreciate it if you told me how you did that. Is it a feature that is now automatically included in the New Blogger's layout mode? I stayed in the template mode after switching to New Blogger because I don't like the link list formatting in the layout mode. Also, personally I would prefer a longer list, like 10 comments instead of just 5.

>>>>> The only place that I have seen flagrant arbitrary censorship is on your blog "I'm From Missouri". <<<<<

Despite all this talk about my arbitrarily censoring comments, I have seen no attempt to re-post a comment that allegedly disappeared.

>>>>>> Your complaints about being "arbitrarily" censored on other blogs are bogus. <<<<<<

Bullshit -- I gave several specific examples. One example was where Ed Brayton kicked me off his blog permanently because he disagreed with my literal interpretation of a federal court rule, and he didn't even give me a single chance to respond to his disagreement.

Gossip about my private life -- e.g., my family and my employment status -- is still gossip whether it is true or not. As I said, there is no gossip about others on my blog, so there should be no gossip about me there.

Also, you pretend to be intimately familiar with my private life but you have no basis for such familiarity. You are just a no-good liar.

>>>>> I think that in this case mentioning that your parents and ancestors were Jews and would not have survived in WWII Germany was not out of line. <<<<<<

One thing that is taboo is gossiping about others' religion (or non-religion) without their permission.

>>>>>> When you are discussing a legal subject and claim to be an expert, it does have a bearing.

Attorneys don't tell judges and juries about the legal careers of opposing attorneys.

They would certainly speak up if a person claiming to be an expert was not. <<<<<<

Unless challenged, I don't claim to be a legal expert but just state my arguments. It is the task of others to counter those arguments rather than just make ad hominem attacks about my expertise. In the law, expertise counts for nothing because it is not necessary to take anyone's word for anything -- the arguments and the cited authorities are out there for all to see.

>>>>> Nonetheless, my legal career is in the public records and I have never threatened to censor mention of it.

You have said that we don't know what we are talking about because you claimed that some of your cases were not available publicly. <<<<<<

Some are almost certainly not available publicly, like my small claims cases. Other minor cases -- or cases filed before the Internet became prominent in the legal field -- might not be available on the Internet. Frankly, I don't give a damn.

>>>>> And you have threatened to censor mention of it. <<<<<

Another big lie.

>>>>>I was just confused by the incorrect definitions of a "meteor shower" as "radiating from," "originating in," or "emanating from" the constellation for which it is named.

Not because numerous people didn't try to explain it to you. <<<<<<

I immediately accepted the first explanation. You are talking about things that you know nothing about. You are just a big liar and you are not fooling anyone.

>>>>>> You didn't mention anything about your previous belief that the moon landings were staged. <<<<<<

Because it's not relevant to the discussions. One's arguments in each discussion should stand on their own merits.

>>>>> Yes, Alan. As the only practicing member of the ANCB, do you really want this link there? <<<<<<

I am an even better non-censoring blogger than Alan -- I accept holocuast denial and some abusive language but he does not.

Larry said:The amount of help I can give you is limited because I am averaging only about 40 visits per day, but your blog is in much worse shape with only about 10 visits per day

At least 30 of Larry’s visits can be attributed to three or four people including myself who only go there for the laughs, and his brother who goes there out of concern. Is that the sort of attention that you want, Alan? I think that all you need is patience. The fact that you actually have a blog where people can discuss things without censorship is bound to eventually bring in more readers. In contrast, Larry is like a little child who acts up because he doesn’t feel he is getting enough attention.

>>>>> I am against arbitrary censorship. <<<<<

Baloney.

Do you have any evidence that I am not against arbitrary censorship? Your only case is that I don’t support your imagined claims. I know of no case where you were arbitrarily censored.

Despite all this talk about my arbitrarily censoring comments, I have seen no attempt to re-post a comment that allegedly disappeared.

If you ignore the emails that you invited.

>>>>>> Your complaints about being "arbitrarily" censored on other blogs are bogus. <<<<<<

One example was where Ed Brayton kicked me off his blog permanently because he disagreed with my literal interpretation of a federal court rule

We all know that is not why you were blocked. Alan has even covered it on this blog. Repeating a lie will never make it true. Can you come up with a valid example?

Gossip about my private life -- e.g., my family and my employment status -- is still gossip whether it is true or not.

I have given my reasons for addressing them. You are dodging replying to those reasons.

Also, you pretend to be intimately familiar with my private life but you have no basis for such familiarity. You are just a no-good liar.

Would a person who doesn’t know you be able to make so many accurate statements about you? Can you name a single statement that I have made that was inaccurate? I am intimately familiar with your private life and if you didn’t have your head buried so deeply in the sand, you would know who I am.

>>>>> I think that in this case mentioning that your parents and ancestors were Jews and would not have survived in WWII Germany was not out of line. <<<<<<

One thing that is taboo is gossiping about others' religion (or non-religion) without their permission.

I would think that the exception is obvious here.

Unless challenged, I don't claim to be a legal expert but just state my arguments.

Another lie. You have told how it is easy to become an expert on some aspects of the law and held yourself out as an example. You claimed to be one of the world’s foremost experts on smog fee cases despite the fact that every case you filed was thrown out of court.

Have you ever won a legal case anywhere? Don’t dodge this.

It is the task of others to counter those arguments rather than just make ad hominem attacks about my expertise

Perhaps you should follow your own advice. You rarely counter arguments other than just repeat your original statements, followed by ad hominem attacks.

>>>>> Nonetheless, my legal career is in the public records and I have never threatened to censor mention of it.

You have said that we don't know what we are talking about because you claimed that some of your cases were not available publicly. <<<<<<

Some are almost certainly not available publicly, like my small claims cases. Other minor cases -- or cases filed before the Internet became prominent in the legal field -- might not be available on the Internet.

Now take one side of this or the other. You are currently trying to take both.

Frankly, I don't give a damn.

About truth or accuracy!.

>>>>>I was just confused by the incorrect definitions of a "meteor shower" as "radiating from," "originating in," or "emanating from" the constellation for which it is named.

Not because numerous people didn't try to explain it to you. <<<<<<

I immediately accepted the first explanation.

False, you continued to argue and insult those who tried to explain this simple phenomenon to you.

You are talking about things that you know nothing about.

Does anyone else believe that?

>>>>>> You didn't mention anything about your previous belief that the moon landings were staged. <<<<<<

Because it's not relevant to the discussions.

It is relevant to your credibility and your willingness to believe outlandish things. You once claimed that there were not enough factories on Earth to account for all of the consumer goods appearing on the store shelves without supernatural help. These items certainly speak to your sanity.

>>>>> Yes, Alan. As the only practicing member of the ANC, do you really want this link there? <<<<<<

I am an even better non-censoring blogger than Alan -- I accept holocuast (sic) denial and some abusive language but he does not.

Voice said,>>>>>>Larry said:The amount of help I can give you is limited because I am averaging only about 40 visits per day, but your blog is in much worse shape with only about 10 visits per day

At least 30 of Larry’s visits can be attributed to three or four people including myself who only go there for the laughs, and his brother who goes there out of concern. <<<<<<

Bullshit. My SiteMeter "location" page shows that every day I get lots of visits from all over the USA and all over the world.

>>>>>> Do you have any evidence that I am not against arbitrary censorship? <<<<<

Yes -- you approve of such censorship on Panda's Thumb, Ed Brayton's Dispatches from the Culture Wars, etc.. I have presented many examples of such censorship.

>>>>> I have seen no attempt to re-post a comment that allegedly disappeared.

If you ignore the emails that you invited. <<<<<<

I have not ignored emails and I was talking about re-posting comments without sending me emails.

>>>>> One example was where Ed Brayton kicked me off his blog permanently because he disagreed with my literal interpretation of a federal court rule

We all know that is not why you were blocked. Alan has even covered it on this blog. <<<<<

Alan, is that true? Did your blog ever cover that incident? Anyway, I have already presented the whole story about this -- it is in a link in my last comment.

>>>>> Gossip about my private life -- e.g., my family and my employment status -- is still gossip whether it is true or not.

I have given my reasons for addressing them. <<<<<<

There are no reasons for addressing them -- they are not relevant to the discussions.

>>>>>Also, you pretend to be intimately familiar with my private life but you have no basis for such familiarity. You are just a no-good liar.

Would a person who doesn’t know you be able to make so many accurate statements about you? <<<<<

It is easy to make things up. And if you do know me or people who know me, that is no excuse for posting gossip.

>>>>> You claimed to be one of the world’s foremost experts on smog fee cases <<<<<<

That's true -- I am.

>>>>> Have you ever won a legal case anywhere? Don’t dodge this. <<<<<<

Why should I gossip about myself? Particularly about something that has no bearing on the discussions. Do you gossip about yourself? We don't even know your name. Do you consider your name to be gossip?

>>>>> Now take one side of this or the other. <<<<<<

What sides? I was just making a statement of fact.

>>>>> It is relevant to your credibility and your willingness to believe outlandish things. <<<<<<

My credibility would be an issue if it were necessary for people to take my word for anything -- but it is generally not necessary to take my word for anything in discussions that I participate in.

>>>>> This is now my favorite thread here. I never would have thought that the "Gravity is the Strongest Force" thread would relinquish its title, but I was wrong. <<<<<<

That depends on what your criterion for "strongest force" is. If your criterion is the force per unit mass of the bodies creating the force, then gravity is a very weak force. However, if even one of the bodies is fairly massive, e.g., the earth, then gravity is a fairly strong force. Nuclear forces are often considered to be the strongest in terms of force or energy per unit mass. However, black holes and white-dwarf stars are supposed to have enormously powerful gravitational fields.

>>>>> Larry, would all of these comments have appeared on your blog? <<<<<

Bullshit. My SiteMeter "location" page shows that every day I get lots of visits from all over the USA and all over the world.

It was not necessary to warn us that your statement would be bullshit. We expect it.

>>>>>> Do you have any evidence that I am not against arbitrary censorship? <<<<<

Yes -- you approve of such censorship on Panda's Thumb, Ed Brayton's Dispatches from the Culture Wars, etc..

You have always believed that repeating a lie often enough will make it true. Sorry, Larry. It doesn't work that way.

I have presented many examples of such censorship.

No. You have only misrepresented cases where you were banned for the reasons Alan stated.

I have not ignored emails and I was talking about re-posting comments without sending me emails.

You have told commenters who believe that their posts were dropped to email them to you and you would post them yourself. Then you ignored the emails.

>>>>> We all know that is not why you were blocked. <<<<<

Alan said (on this thread):

"You may not agree, but your persistent off-topic posts at PT were initially bounced to the bathroom wall legitimately, and it was only your subsequent use of aliases that earned you a permanent ban."

I have already presented the whole story about this

You have lied about it again. The truth is that you were dropped for cause.

>>>>> Gossip about my private life -- e.g., my family and my employment status -- is still gossip whether it is true or not.

I have given my reasons for addressing them. <<<<<<

There are no reasons for addressing them

How about the ones I gave?

It is easy to make things up.

It is not necessary. You have never denied a thing that I have said except that Dave is your brother. Ed Brayton has proven that the Dave Fafarman who has posted on his blog is the real one except for the time you did a crude job of trying to impersonate him. Despite your denying him, Dave has bent over backwards to try to find something positive to say about you. That isn't easy.

>>>>> You claimed to be one of the world’s foremost experts on smog fee cases <<<<<<

That's true -- I am.

How does being laughed out of court on every single case make you an expert?

>>>>> Have you ever won a legal case anywhere? Don’t dodge this. <<<<<<

Why should I gossip about myself?

We can take that to be a NO.

Particularly about something that has no bearing on the discussions.

You are claiming to be one of the world's foremost experts on smog fee cases. The fact that your filings have been thrown out of court at the first hearing, without a single exception, certainly has a bearing on your credibility. (And please don't cry about crooked judges. You are small potatoes. They are not interested in conspiring against you.)

Do you gossip about yourself? We don't even know your name.

Most of "us" do know my name. Dave does.

>>>>> Now take one side of this or the other. <<<<<<

What sides? I was just making a statement of fact.

Two facts. One that all of your legal background can be found on the net and two that some of it can't be found on the net.

>>>>> It is relevant to your credibility and your willingness to believe outlandish things. <<<<<<

My credibility would be an issue if it were necessary for people to take my word for anything -- but it is generally not necessary to take my word for anything in discussions that I participate in.

Since you never back up anything you say other than by repetition, it would be necessary to take your word. Of course nobody does. Your answer verifies the accuracy of my statement.

I stand corrected. A more accurate statement would be that Alan doesn't censor arbitrarily. You drop statements some days that you would accept others. It may be related to when you take your medicine.

"You may not agree, but your persistent off-topic posts at PT were initially bounced to the bathroom wall legitimately, and it was only your subsequent use of aliases that earned you a permanent ban." <<<<<<

We were talking about Ed Brayton's blog, not PT, remember? And I posted a link to the exact point where Ed kicked me permanently off his blog. And my comment on Ed's blog was not off-topic -- Ed kicked me off his blog solely because he disagreed with the comment and he did not even give me a single chance to respond to his objection to my comment.

You can rant on all you want to here, but I am not going to waste any more time answering you. You are nothing but a big liar.

Also, Alan doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. He is just making this stuff up. My comments on PT were always on-topic unless I was responding to an off-topic comment that was directed at me -- and even then I tried to keep the digression short. And I did not start using multiple names until after I was banned there. Hey PT, I have a suggestion -- if you don't want me to use multiple names, then don't ban me.

Anyway, Alan, I don't see why you want to bite the hand that feeds you. So far as I can see, I am the only one who has been trying to help you revive your blog. My blog has articles about your blog and a permanent link to your blog, and I was the one who suggested that you invite guest articles.

As I said, this blog was an experiment to see what would happen if there were no moderation and no bans. I also hoped to draw in particular posters, especially Dave Springer, who often complained about being unable to engage with "church burnin' ebola boys" on their own turf. I don't have enough time to devote to running a blog and really don't want any further promotion, and I never solicited your help. In fact, I have studiously avoided your blog since your brother requested you be left alone until you decided to persuade me to join your association. The motive for your doing so appears to be to gain some credibility for yourself. Incidentally, my thread on this blog was a request for guest posts, and I did post quite a few, so your suggestion was not original.

The amount of help I can give you is limited because I am averaging only about 40 visits per day, but your blog is in much worse shape with only about 10 visits per day.

As I said, Larry. I am not interested in promoting my blog. I am only surprised that interest lasted so long.

I don't see what you've got to lose by accepting my help while trying to overlook my holocaust revisionism and tolerance of some abusive language. And accepting help from a holocaust revisionist does not mean that you are a holocaust revisionist yourself.

This is a whole new world for me, Larry. This is a mine of information on holocaust revisionists/deniers. Do you know I came across ID quite accidentally because an ID enthusiast confronted me in a forum unrelated to the issue and directed me to pro-ID sites. The result was probably not what he hoped for. Similarly, I did not realise holocaust denial/revisionism was such an industry in the US. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.To say I do not wish to be associated with it is an understatement. So I hope you will understand why I am walking away from your association forthwith.

I was not trying to hurt Larry by bringing out his hypocrisy. I am trying to get him to see reality. It is a fool's errand. As far as he is concerned, he is sane and everyone else is crazy.

I have noticed that you remind him of inconvenient details that sometimes slip his mind. I don't wish to comment on his mental state as I have no expertise and my only knowledge of Larry is what has appeared in the blogosphere over the last couple of years.

Wow, Larry. You aren't seriously going to take up the gravity as the strongest force in the universe argument, are you? After DaveScot struggled valiantly to become the funniest force in the universe on the thread with said title?

Two things to consider if you really want to discuss this:

1. I can counteract the gravitational field of the entire Earth by picking up my dinner plate or by holding a refridgerator magnet over a paperclip.

Blipey said,>>>>> Two things to consider if you really want to discuss this:

1. I can counteract the gravitational field of the entire Earth by picking up my dinner plate or by holding a refridgerator magnet over a paperclip. <<<<<<<

I've already answered that point. I said that in the case of the earth, gravity is a fairly strong force, but in the cases of, say, white dwarf stars and black holes, gravity is a very strong force.

Also, I might add that though nuclear forces are fixed in terms of the force or energy available per unit mass, there is a huge variation in the force or energy available from gravitational fields. For example, though light is normally weakly affected by gravity (in accordance with Einstein's predictions, starlight was observed to be slightly deflected by the sun's enormous gravity during a solar eclipse), a black hole's gravitational field is so strong that even light cannot escape from it.

>>>>>> 2. By what criteria or units is it appropriate to compare forces? <<<<<<

I've already answered that, too. I said that in terms of the force per unit mass of the bodies that create the force, gravity is a very weak force. At least one of the bodies -- e.g., the earth -- must be massive in order to create a substantial gravitational force.

The neutron star's compactness also gives it very high surface gravity, 2×10 to 11th to 3×10 to 12th times stronger than that of Earth. One measure of such immense gravity is the fact that neutron stars have an escape velocity of around 150,000 km/s, about 1/2 of the speed of light. Matter falling onto the surface of a neutron star would strike the star also at 150,000 km/s, and then be crushed under its own weight into a puddle less than an atom thick.

Voice said,>>>>>> Please read something about this subject before attempting to respond. <<<<<<

Voice simply does not know how to engage in a civil conversation and he always presumes that he is smarter than the next guy.

It's good advice, Larry. I have read "A Brief History of Time" a few times but googling Hawking radiation just now was an interesting diversion. There is so much up-to-date information on the net if you wish to look.

Alan Fox said,>>>>> It's good advice, Larry. I have read "A Brief History of Time" a few times but googling Hawking radiation just now was an interesting diversion. There is so much up-to-date information on the net if you wish to look. <<<<<<

No, it was not good advice. Voice could have pointed out this "up-to-date information" in a polite way.

I didn't choose this topic -- Blipey did -- and I responded to the best of my ability.

>>>>> I don't wish to comment on his mental state as I have no expertise and my only knowledge of Larry is what has appeared in the blogosphere over the last couple of years. <<<<<

I am one of the few truly sane people around here.

Voice is gossiping here about my private life because I won't allow such gossip on my blog. That is pretty sleazy of Voice.

Alan, what do you want to do with your posts on the member list at the ANCB website? I would appreciate it if you would delete them because that list is intended only for members.